Rep. Thomas Massie Is Voting for Trump

The libertarian-leaning Kentucky congressman says he's backing the Republican nominee.

Reason

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie is, along with Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, one of two members of the House of Representatives who is frequently described as a libertarian. We included him when we sent around Reason's quadrennial "Who's Getting Your Vote?" survey (full results coming soon!), and he just replied with this note:

I've voted for Bob Barr (Libertarian) and Pat Buchanan (Reform Party) for POTUS in the past, but this year I plan to vote for Donald Trump.

He didn't say more there about why he was backing Trump. But he also mentioned his intention to vote for Trump on the Cincinnati radio station 55KRC yesterday, and there he offered this thought about his choice:

I think you're more likely to get change. I don't know if it's gonna be a good change, but you gotta break eggs to make an omelette.

Later in the interview, he added this:

Either Donald or Hillary is gonna win, and I think Donald Trump is more likely to sign my legislation, that I want to get passed, than Hillary Clinton is.

Massie also expressed appreciation for Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, and he promised to do all he can as a legislator to "rein him in" if President Trump acts unconstitutionally.

Amash, meanwhile, still hasn't said who he intends to support, though he has made it clear that both Trump and Clinton are unacceptable to him. After Gary Johnson's running mate on the Libertarian ticket, William Weld, told Reason that Stephen Breyer and Merrick Garland are his kind of Supreme Court picks, Amash tweeted this disappointed response:

It's like they're daring me to cast a write-in vote for president. Can @RandPaul please jump back into this race? https://t.co/bP4YyRqHDs

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 30, 2016

But in subsequent tweets he added that Johnson is "still better than the other two" and that he hasn't "decided yet" whether he's voting Libertarian. So Amash's plans are still pending.

Comments

[Bob Meyer]

Massie doesn't seem to understand that in the "new" Democrat controlled legislature his bills will never get out of committee. Even if the Republicans retain control (unlikely with Donald "Albatross" Trump at the head of the ticket) he is despised by "real" Republicans who won't let his bills get voted on either.

I like Massie a lot but he's wrong about supporting Trump in any way.

[prolefeed]

I've gotta question how libertarian any "libertarian for Trump" person is.

[SugarFree]

A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos. Chaos is sort of like anarchy if you take off your glasses and squint really hard.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Regardless of what specific policies Trump would implement, he is a top-down authoritarian. That is the antithesis of liberty.

[SugarFree]

Lighten up, Francis.

[Bobarian (Would Chip Her)]

I think you're more likely to get change. I don't know if it's gonna be a good change, but you gotta break eggs to make an omelette.

This is the only valid argument for voting Trump.

He might just eliminate the GOP if he gets elected.

[dmoney]

Promise?

[CatoTheChipper]

Two things that make Trump less horrible than Hillary:

#1 He's not looking to spark a war with Russia.
#2 He could be be impeached and convicted. There would be plenty of Republican senators who would be happy to convict if he stepped out of line. As president, Hillary would be above the law. Say what you will about the Democrats, they know how to run a disciplined criminal organization.

[Billy Bones]

"Say what you will about the Democrats, they know how to run a disciplined criminal organization."

As they have unfettering support from all the unions, I would say they have been taught by the best at running disciplined criminal organizations.

[Rhywun]

Here in NYC at least, all the elected Democrats were not just taught by the unions, they were birthed by them. Going down the line almost every one was a union "activist" at some point in their career.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Not very.

[Domestic Dissident]

Kill him! Burn the witch!! Burn him!!!

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Dumbass Gassy is selling us out.

[Bob Meyer]

Weld clearly believes in judicial restraint if he likes Breyer and Garland. That's a major disappointment. Has Johnson ever named justices that he likes or would appoint?

[Joe M]

He's said he'd like originalists, but I don't think he's ever named names.

[kinnath]

And the push-poll calls are already starting here in Iowa (which is in play this year -- apparently a lot of Iowans really hate Hillary).

I may actually have to go and vote for Trump if the election is still close on election day. My gorge rises as I type this. It's only going to get worse as we get closer to November.

[mashed potatoes]

Where you at in Iowa? here in davenport, haven't really been hearing of any calls or really seen many ads.. surprisingly quiet..

[kinnath]

I am a registered Republican (caucused for Ron Paul both times). The election 2 years ago was terrible. We'd have 5 or 6 messages on the answering machine every day leading up to the election. We are getting 4 or 5 a week already.

[kinnath]

I know Braley was going down when we (registered republicans) were getting phone calls from the Braley campaign, because they were so desperate to turn out voters.

[Billy Bones]

I can't speak for Iowa, but here in Georgia, ever since the Atlanta Journal-Constitution released their most recent poll showing Hildebeast with about a 5-point lead, I cannot turn on the TV without seeing an ad for that cunt. What is especially infuriating is I see the most ads while trying to support my country watching the Olympics. WTF, can't we all at least agree to keep the fucking Olympics apolitical. I spend more time changing the channel to avoid her ads than I do trying to watch the events.

[Rhywun]

One of the joys of living in NY is never having to see a Hillary ad.

[nicmart]

You support your country by watching the Olympics but you want to keep the event apolitical. That's appropriately irrational.

[Cynical Asshole]

I figure the odds of a single vote swinging an election are so minuscule that even if the polls are showing a lead within the margin of error for Hildebeast I'll still vote Johnson and at least not throw up in my mouth. If The Cankles wins CO by a single vote and our 9 EC votes put her over the top in the EC vote count, then I'll apologize, but I don't anticipate having to do that.

[robc]

As someone said the other day, and I promised to steal:

If I was told that Trump/Clinton would tie without me and my vote would decide the election, I would choose to leave them tied.

[Cynical Asshole]

Same here. If for no other reason than the epic lulz as everyone tries to figure what to do next.

[Arizona_Guy]

I've been able to take for granted that AZ won't get hit with prez ads.

Not this year. The Clinton TV ads have already started.

[Glide]

In theory I would vote for Trump if I honest to god knew that Ohio would be within a hundred votes.

But that's unlikely and if it was that close it would probably be decided in court, not by my vote; in the end despite Johnson's deficiencies and despite Ohio's swing status, I'd have a hard time not being part of the first libertarian voting bloc ever to get 5% (or hey, 2%) of the vote.

[Lord at War]

Also in OH. The Hillary ads I try to ignore- but the Portman/Strickland ads are neverending.

[HazelMeade]

Don't do it. Resist the logic of the two-party system.

[Zeb]

It's like that in NH starting in January of a presidential year. I went away last week and had about 50 calls from pollsters while I was gone.

[kinnath]

Caucus season is bad too.

[kinnath]

http://www.politico.com/story/.....und-226890

If this thread isn't totally dead, then here:

DES MOINES ? It's the state that derailed her 2008 campaign, and nearly did it again in the February caucuses. Now, even as Hillary Clinton's lead grows across the swing state map, Iowa continues to bedevil her, remaining well within Donald Trump's reach.

. . .

While the state's six electoral votes aren't essential to Clinton's path to 270, it's a place that Obama won comfortably twice and Democrats are loath to lose, especially with a competitive Senate race on the ballot.

"I was frankly surprised at polling pre-convention that had Iowa closer than a lot of these other battleground states," said veteran Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link, who has worked for Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Tom Harkin. "But [Trump] did well here in the caucuses, and his populist appeal certainly is Harkin-style populism turned on its head."

Part of Clinton's problem is the state's demographics. In no battleground state is she more dependent on less-educated white voters ? Trump's wheelhouse ? than in Iowa. And Trump's relationship with the local GOP infrastructure is in far better shape than in other swing states.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Sad

[commodious warned u bucko]

I think you're more likely to get change. I don't know if it's gonna be a good change, but you gotta break eggs to make an omelette.

You're likelier to break heads than eggs under Clinton, and the omelette... well, do you remember that old anti-drug commercial? It's gonna be that kind of omelette.

[Libertarian]

This is Trump. This is your vote on Trump. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

[Cynical Asshole]

do you remember that old anti-drug commercial?

I remember a young, hot Jennifer Jason Leigh smashing shit while wearing a tight white tank top, but I never paid much attention to what she was saying.

[Libertarian]

I don't know if they ever did a follow up study to see if it backfired, but I for one thought that commercial made heroin look cool.

[Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!]

An obscure magazine named Reason covered a follow up study on the ad.

[Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!]

Not Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Rachel Leigh Cook.

[Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!]

Link

[Zeb]

That's not the old one, that was the new, edgy one. The old one was just a fried egg.'

When did everyone get so young?

[Lord at War]

25 years ago as far as I know. /Get off my lawn

[Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair]

A lot depends on the state. I live in California, so I have the luxury of my vote mattering even less than normal. In some swing state, where it may only be a few thousand votes difference, it's a lot easier to convince yourself that your vote is important. I sort of agree -- Hillary is a known evil, and thoroughly so; Trump is an unknown clown who will be both evil and not-so-evil, and I also think so detached and volatile that it might not be too hard for Congress to rein him in, somewhat, on issues they can be roused to care about.

It's odd. Almost always, I want Congress and the President to be different parties. Here Trump isn't from either party, yet a lot of Republicans and Democrats are pretending he is Republican. How will that affect things? I do not know.

[SugarFree]

I'm not going to yell at Massie for this. He's a Republican. Trump is the Republican nominee. When Hillary wins, if Massie was on the record as not voting for Trump, the loudest and dumbest can blame him for Hillary being elected. This is just how the sausage gets made.

[prolefeed]

It's more like the frequent "I am disappoint" I get with Gary Johnson. Way better than the two evil alternatives, but you'd think the LP could, every now and then, just to change things up, nominate someone who is full-on libertarian.

[SugarFree]

Eh. As long as the LP pursues the strategy of luring in failed politicians from the Republican party, you are going to have authoritarian shitheels (Bob Barr) and wimpy quasi-centrists like Johnson.

There's no one that would please all libertarians. Even the purest of principled libertarians are going to piss someone off, or be so awkward that he or she can't actually represent the brand.

[Nicholas Sarwark]

And yet he voted for the "authoritarian shitheel" in 2008.

Hmm.

[SugarFree]

So did I. But it didn't make Barr a good candidate.

[prolefeed]

I voted for Barr, too, as the lesser of three evils.

And then he turned out shittier then I thought he was, and after reluctantly voting for GayJay last time around, I finally went an-cap non-voter.

[Hugh Akston]

Thong Man 2020!

[Joe M]

We did back in 2004 with Badnarik. Kind of on accident, but still.

[robc]

I voted for Badnarik, but I understand exactly why he got .3% or whatever. He was never going to draw mainstream interest.

Same problem with Peterson this time around.

The best libertarian and the best LP candidate aren't the same thing...at this time.

[Joe M]

Right. We've tried "purists" and been ignored. I've been voting LP for twenty years, and I'm okay with an impure candidate to get more attention and votes. Johnson is way better than Barr anyway. Let's stop this bus from going off the cliff before we argue about which town to drive to next.

[Cynical Asshole]

you'd think the LP could, every now and then, just to change things up, nominate someone who is full-on libertarian.

And get what, 100 votes, tops? Besides, even Libertarians can't agree on what it means to be "full-on libertarian".

[commodious warned u bucko]

Now tell us how it gets hidden.

[SugarFree]

I could link to a chart...

[NYer]

Agreed. Massie is also from a district in Kentucky which is likely to go solidly for Trump. He's merely following Rand Paul's lead on this...at least in public. In the voting booth though I'm wiling to bet that most of the "conservatarians" (Paul, Lee, Amash, Massie, etc.) are gonna vote for the Libertarian ticket.

[IWasADemocrat]

The "lesser of the two evil" stigma is (and will be) extremely difficult to break.

Until there is a demand for Change (in system, not just people), I am not sure the L's can be successful at selling Change.

Now if someone like Massie still doesn't support GJ, what chances does GJ have?

[Cynical Asshole]

what chances does GJ have?

There never was much hope, just a fool's hope.

[Thomas O.]

You'd have to force every state to go proportional instead of winner-take-all, or just do away with the Electoral College altogether and have the President be chosen by a plurality of the popular vote. That's the only way I can think of to nurture a multiparty system in American politics. I'd suggest runoffs between the top two vote-getters, but 99.9999% of the time we'd just end up with the Big Two in those two spots.

Of course, the probability of those reforms happening... something about Hell and snowballs...

[Free Society]

It's not the electoral college that drives the two party system. Certainly the winner-take-all rules do however. But more importantly is the First Past The Post system which is a mathematical incentive for factions to coalesce into two large parties versus that of a multitude of them.

[straffinrun]

Can Rand Paul please jump back in the race?

Why, Amash, Why? Don't remind us!

[Hugh Akston]

"This country is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their spending and war will foam up about their waists and all the lobbyists and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No."

[Libertarian]

"All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets. I go all over. I take people to the Bronx, Brooklyn, I take 'em to Harlem. I don't care. Don't make no difference to me. It does to some. Some won't even take spooks. Don't make no difference to me."

I've been saying that Trump is Chance, the gardener. I'm beginning to wonder if he's a lot like Travis Bickle, as well.

[Libertarian]

"All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

I've been saying that Trump reminded me of Chance, the gardener. Now I'm thinking Travis Bickle.

[Domestic Dissident]

Obama of course is the real life Chauncey Gardiner.

Except that Obama isn't even "there" most of the time. He's usually on a fucking golf course in Martha's Vineyard or something.

[gaoxiaen]

That's probably a good thing.

[Cynical Asshole]

*In the line at the Senate cafeteria*

McConnell: "Hey Rand. Hey you're pretty famous, right? Hey you know what? I'm pretty famous too, ain't that right?"

Feinstein: "That's right!"

M: "You know, maybe I can give you an autograph, huh? What you say big boy?"

*Hits McConnell with cafeteria tray and the throws scalding hot fry grease in Mitch McConnell's face*

Rand Paul: "None of you seem to undertand! I'm not locked in here with you, YOU"RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME!"

[Ken Shultz]

"Massie also expressed appreciation for Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, and he promised to do all he can as a legislator to "rein him in" if President Trump acts unconstitutionally."

Well, that's just outrageous--how could he say such a thing?!

That's what people with TDS would say anyway. Seems reasonable to me. Especially if Trump's message is playing well in Kentucky's grass roots.

And It really shouldn't surprise anyone when libertarian leaning politicians act like politicians. They are politicians. And they've got non-libertarian voters to think about, too.

[commodious warned u bucko]

I'm not sure how exeactly the election is expected to break down, but if the choice is a Hillary blowout taking the Senate and compromising the House or Trump narrowly winning and the GOP keeping the Senate in play, well, I'd prefer to put my faith in Amash and fellow travelers to rein in Trump.

[chemjeff]

It is a tough decision, I think.

Ideologically, both Trump and Hillary are about the same, and noxiously bad. Sadly, Gary Johnson/William Weld seem only slightly better.

But, voting for Trump would reward his horrible campaign of scapegoating foreigners and general celebration of ignorance.

But, voting for Hillary would reward her long, long, long history of corruption and malfeasance, and with the media behind her 100% of the way, she wouldn't suffer any consequences for her illegal behavior.

But, voting for Johnson would reward the cosmotarian shift towards pandering to the social fascism of the prog left and abandoning genuine libertarian defense of things like freedom of association.

It really is tough.

[HazelMeade]

I'm deeply concerned about the rights of bigots to be allowed to discriminate. it keeps me awake at night. Whatever will they do?

[Free Society]

You are deeply concerned as I recall. So much so that you voiced your apprehension about the consequences of letting people actually have their free association rights respected by law. Fear that freedom.

[HazelMeade]

Absolutely. It is so important to let people discriminate against blacks and gay people that we should be willing to lose elections over this. it's an uncompromisable principle. More sacred even than property rights and free markets. More fundamental than taxation or limited government.

Freedom of association is primal, right next to the right to own guns and display confederate flags.
Also Mexicans. They can't be allowed to have jobs that belong to white people. Just wanted to make that clear.

[DWB]

Because it's always best to base our neighbor's freedom on how WE feel!!!!

[Cynical Asshole]

But, voting for Johnson would reward the cosmotarian shift towards pandering to the social fascism of the prog left and abandoning genuine libertarian defense of things like freedom of association.

FWIW, while that may be an accurate description of Johnson's position as an individual politician, I don't think that describes the LP or the "libertarian movement" as a whole. The LP's platform, IIRC, still has a pretty strong defense of freedom of association. Again, IIRC, even Anderson Cooper pointed it out at one point in the 2nd LP town hall debate.

So I'm not convinced that there's a "cosmotarian shift" within the party or the movement at large, so much as a pragmatic choice to nominate someone with prior executive experience who might be viewed as acceptable to non-libertarian voters. IOW, "electability" won out over ideology. Johnson is to the LP as Romney was to the GOP in 2012. Maybe Libertarians really are just Republicans who like weed, Mexicans, and ass sex after all.

[PurityDiluting]

and in 4 years the LP will need to rent someone else with prior executive experience who might be viewed as acceptable to non-libertarian voters. Who might that be?

[Stormy Dragon]

Cast an empty ballot. It doesn't help anyone win, but it does dilute the support of whomever does.

[Arizona_Guy]

I can't speak for anywhere else, but here a blank ballot is not counted in the total.

[Zeb]

I prefer to write in my own name.

[gaoxiaen]

I almost won as tax assessor once by doing that. I lost drawing straws.

[Rufus The Monocled]

That's disappointing.

Can someone explain to me why Johnson isn't a good option at this point?

[Joe M]

Cakes and the Supreme Court, basically.

[Pat (PM)]

If you're going to drink shitty beer, you might as well drink full-calorie.

[LynchPin1477]

Because people would rather get caught up on the 10% of things they disagree with him on (along with everyone else in the race) than the 90% of things on which he would move the country in a more libertarian direction.

[Pat (PM)]

According to that ISideWith site, I agree almost exactly as much with Gary Johnson as I do with John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. There were 5 or 6 other libertarian candidates (most of whom I'd never heard of and I don't think were actually even running this year), all of whom scored above 90% (with a couple over 95%). On the same quiz, Gary himself matches up to Bernie Sanders only marginally worse than I match up with him. Sorry if "5% more libertarian than Bernie Sanders!" doesn't persuade very many people to hop on your bandwagon, but it's no more splitting hairs than not voting for Donald Trump is.

[MikeP2]

I just did the ISideWith.

90% Johnson, 86% Castle (who???), 82% Trump.

So really, that means if I vote for Trump, I get 91% of Johnson's positions?

[Glide]

Their percentages don't seem to follow the rules of math. I'm 92% with Gary and Gary claims Bernie was his top match, but every single Republican running except Kasich was a better match for me than Bernie by at least 10 points.

[Cynical Asshole]

I don't think their algorithms are very accurate.

[See Double You]

I just took the ISideWith quiz, and I side with GJ on 93% of the issues.

[Free Society]

If you're 93% Gary Johnson, and Gary Johnson is 73% Bernie Sanders, then what percent Bernie are you?

[Zeb]

I want to know what the Trump/Sanders percentage is. I bet it's pretty high.

The thing about Sanders and libertarians is that libertarians do agree with him, to a certain extent, on a lot of things. Sanders correctly identifies a number of problems, but then completely mischaracterizes the causes and proposes completely horrible "solutions". But he is right that wealthy elites control too much in politics and that Wall street and Washington are too close and that crony capitalists are dicking over the poor and middle classes. He's just wrong about everything once you get any deeper than that.

[Zeb]

Sounds like a load of shit to me. If it says Bernie and Johnson agree on a lot, I don't think it is measuring political ideology very well.

Anyway, you don't vote for the LP candidate because you think he's perfect. You vote for him to promote libertarianism as an idea. He's not going to win no matter what.

[Zeb]

Also, as a control, how much did you match up with Sanders?

[Joe M]

This. Although I think a lot of those people are concern trolls who don't actually agree with him as much as 90% and just want to tear him down cuz TEAM BE RULED ?ber alles.

[NYer]

To be fair to Congressman Massie, he's in Kentucky which is gonna go solidly for Trump. Now if the LP nominee were Austen Petersen, whose Pro-Life and pro-freedom of association, then the LP ticket would've been a much easier sell for guys like Massie. All well.

Johnson is still better than the other options.

[Michael]

Can someone explain to me why Johnson isn't a good option at this point?

Their pathetic "nice guys" routine, for one thing. Johnson and Weld need to realize that they're in the middle of an all-out, bare knuckled brawl and need to come out swinging. No significant percentage of voters are going to ever take them seriously otherwise.

[HazelMeade]

It's just possible that the sort of thing that will turn out the libertarian base (all 1% of the population that it is) isn't going to win the election.

[Domestic Dissident]

"I agree with Bernie Sanders on about 73% of the issues."
-Gary Johnson

That's why.

[lap83]

Seriously?

[Domestic Dissident]

Seriously. Johnson is not a libertarian; he's a democrat who for some odd reason likes pretending to be everything except what he really is.

You may well just go with Hildog/Kaine, because they and Johnson/Weld are almost the same exact thing.

[Free Society]

They should campaign on that. Put it on their bumper stickers.

73% Bernie / Weld 2016

[Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!]

Done.

[Free Society]

That looks like s to me

[Free Society]

73 percent*

[Zeb]

See my comment above.

Actually, don't bother because you are a moron.

[gaoxiaen]

I came out 80% with Sanders, 93% with Johnson, and 97% with Marc Allan Feldman. Must be all the leftist things that I really don't care about.

[straffinrun]

The lesser of two evils argument in this situation is basically saying that the govt is completely broken and therefore open revolution is warranted. However, people still have the right and ability to vote 3rd party. I don't see GJ as worse than any of the past candidates of the major parties over the past 30 years.

[Pat (PM)]

I don't see GJ as worse than any of the past candidates of the major parties over the past 30 years.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

As a major party candidate, Johnson wouldn't look too bad. As a Libertarian candidate, he makes Bob Barr look like Murray Rothbard. Lesser of 3 evils is better than lesser of 2 evils, but only a little.

[straffinrun]

It's not 3 evils. More accurate to say 1 evil, 1 lunatic and 1 aw shucks let's make govt less awful.

[Pat (PM)]

"Armed men with guns should be able to kill you for taking drugs or turning away customers from your business" still qualifies as "evil" with me.

[straffinrun]

I was an an cap for years. I get your point, but I don't see anything wrong with voting defensively.

[Pat (PM)]

Neither do I. Every political contest with a potential outcome other than a beneficent libertarian philosopher king is an exercise in voting defensively (although Johnson's still not going to get my vote this time out on that basis either). I'm just saying, lesser of 3 evils is plenty accurate.

[Zeb]

Yeah, but anyone running for president is evil by that standard. The only way government can exist is by threatening to shoot you if you don't pay your taxes and follow the rules. Government is inherently evil. If you want to run the government, you are evil. QED.

The only way to vote against evil is not to vote at all.

[MikeP2]

"The only way government can exist is by threatening to shoot you if you don't pay your taxes and follow the rules"

That's the way it is, but not the way it was intended to be.

The "By the people, for the people, and of the people" was intended to break that evil cycle and establish a country for the free. It worked for a long time. Taxes were so negligible that paying them was realitively meaningless. If you didn't like the rules, there were other states to move to. You could homestead and not a person would bother you that you couldn't shoot dead if need be.

voting is not evil. What we've allowed it to become is evil.

[PurityDiluting]

4 years of aw shucks would be a nice break from recent decades of mutual hate mongering

[Libertarian]

And, hopefully, his veto pen would constantly be running out of ink.

[ant1sthenes]

Is Trump a lunatic? I mean, if you see someone doing a speed-run of a game, the way they play seems often nonsensical from the naive perspective of what constitutes "playing right", but really it's carefully orchestrated to exploit glitches and loopholes in the system.

Clearly he might actually be a lunatic, but it's possible he is showing us that exploiting the media's partisanship and addiction to outrage is a viable alternative to kissing the ass of Big Money. He's certainly playing the game in a manner the designers never intended, but it has been surprisingly successful. If it's the latter, then it isn't even clear that he is a xenophobe, or even that he is primarily catering to that tendency in the populace, so much as he is catering to the PC tendencies of the media.

[Cynical Asshole]

Ah yes, the old "He's not a lunatic/ stupid, he's playing 3-D chess while everyone else is playing checkers" defense that I've seen so many times from Obama cultists over the years. I was hoping that line of argument would go away with him.

[ant1sthenes]

Maybe. The thing is, Obama does something completely stupid, it blows up in his face, and then people say it was actually brilliant in some unidentified way that will pan out in the future. Trump has already achieved success -- he won the primary. He is competitive in the general election, while doing things that theoretically should have him losing by a massive landslide.

Yes, it's very likely he will lose the general. But it's also true that he discovered a quasi-viable path that doesn't involve wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of idiot supporter's money, Jeb-style. Most of the tactics people use for speedruns have to be refined iteratively as well. Someone can improve on his tactics, getting better at saying things that outrage the media while being innocuous or bold to Middle America, and use it to score a win without Big Money. The MSM, being the reason that the support of Big Money is needed in the first place, will of course never acknowledge the victory of people over money.

[Azathoth!!]

Actually, it's more like he's playing checkers too--instead of whatever game the GOP's been playing that keeps getting them their asses handed to them.

Trump's playing the same nasty, piss-in-your-face game the Democrats have been playing.

And they don't like it.

[HazelMeade]

That's not too far off. The Democrats play the populist game to get people to support their corrupt policies. Trump's playing a populist game to get people to support a different set of corrupt policies.

[HazelMeade]

About that whole metaphor ... you can't really win at checkers by playing 3D chess.

If you're playing checkers, and you start making moves like you're playing 3D chess, then you probably ARE a lunatic/stupid.

[MikeP2]

The area where Trump is brilliant is not readily obvious, but it really looks like genius.

Hillary has spent hundreds of millions campaigning
Trump has spent negligible amounts, but yet gets a order of magnitude greater coverage.

The fact that he's competitive with a spend that is almost non-existent relative to other campaigns of the last few decades is jaw droppingly amazing. That is the genius.
Didn't Obama spend over 1 billion to get elected?

[Zeb]

I don't know that he's a lunatic. More of a buffoon and huckster. And successful buffoonery takes some kind of talent and intelligence.

[robc]

He is light years better than Barr.

I voted for Barr.

And Root (shudder).

[muw50517]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

[muw50517]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

[Cynical Asshole]

AT LEEST THEIRS 1 LIBERTARDIAN WHU IZN'T SUM KOZMO KUCK FAGGIT!!!11!!111!!!!!1!!

[ant1sthenes]

Not that he's reading, but here's a more defensible answer for an R Congresscritter: I am voting for Trump because, if he wins, both Congress and the White House will discover the political will needed to spend the last months of 2016 limiting the damage the office of the President is able to do -- the benefits for libertarians and opponents of the unilateral executive should be obvious. That political will won't exist if Hillary is elected, even though she represents at least as great a danger to the people and the national interest.

[JudithMcCarty]

I basically profit close to $6k-$9k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuaable paycheck while doing it... Then this work opportunity is.

See Here>>>>>>>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

[SparktheRevolt]

He voted for Buchannan AND now will vote for Trump? Lost a lot of respect for him.

[The Last American Hero]

I give Massie a pass, just because of the license plate on his Tesla is a "Friend of Coal" specialty plate that says NDFED.

[GILMORE?]

the license plate on his Tesla is a "Friend of Coal"

if he's going to drive a federally subsidized vehicle, he could have at least chose a Hummer.

[Zeb]

No more Dennis?

[Zeb]

No more Dennis?

[NotAnotherSkippy]

So the guu who voted for rand after he dropped out in the primaries is going to vote for trump. What a winner.

[PurityDiluting]

At least he didn't follow all the other sheep who voted for Trump in the final primaries after every other candidate had dropped out. False sense of momentum garnering 70%+ of the vote with an empty playing field. Now Trump thinks he's competitive in places like California.

[Hank Phillips]

To that hypothetical idiot the definition of "winning" is GOP gets gubmint paychecks and girls are forced to bear their rapists' children. Those to whom "winning" means cutting taxes and repealing moronic laws are voting libertarian--not impostor, double agent, imitator, cross-dresser or fake.

[qjkxbmwvz]

So, he's "Libertarian-leaning," but he's voting for the biggest authoritarian available. Look, I don't wanna commit a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but this guy is Welsh.

[Azathoth!!]

He said he's voting for Trump, not Hillary. Can't you read?

[Hank Phillips]

There's not a dime's worth of difference to weigh in an either/or looter fallacy. The truth is the election, if not completely rigged, is up for grabs. A search on "paddypower US elections winning party" shows Gary at 100 to 1, about par for the pre-mid-term votecount and in my view a poorly calculated bet. The "Independent" option at 50 to 1 looks like more of a bet on berserker or looter assassins hitting one or both of the entrenched kleptocracy candidates (hence Econazi or LP substitution) than an informed evaluation of Gary's chances. For carrying Texas I would fade bets if offered 33 to 1 against. Dunno how representative Texas is, but NM has a good record for picking winners.
Bottom line: ignore the presstitute polls and vote the best platform. That make the effective demand statement that changes laws and is recorded in political history for higher court judges to read and dirty their robes.

[JohnSutherland54]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+.................. http://www.onlinecash9.com

[RoninX]

Meanwhile, Trump says he's fine with trying US citizens in military tribunals:

"Would you try to get the military commissions ? the trial court there ? to try U.S. citizens?" a reporter asked.

"Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don't like that at all. I don't like that at all," he said. "I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine."

http://www.miamiherald.com/new.....44337.html

[RockLibertyWarrior]

*Face palm* Say it with "Weld and Johnson are not libertarians". Of course I know most of the Reason crowd won't do that, but the fact is Johnson and Weld are Republican lite. Vote for them if you want but before you do go back and watch or read their "comments" they have no idea what a libertarian is. Read other sites besides Reason and you will see that (I am a Reason fan but this fanboy for Johnson stuff needs to stop).

[Hank Phillips]

Yep. The campaign is about government job paychecks, and no matter how much antichoice republicans impersonate libertarians, their chickens come home to roost in dirty machine politics. The way to get Libertarian bills passed and signed is to get enough spoiler votes to make the bastards lose. The Econazis did this to the Dems and Hillary would gladly sign a bill making 30,000 Global Warming skeptics with science degrees who signed the Petition Project wear yellow armbands all the way to internment camps. Once the Go Pee sheds its neo-mohammedan Jihad on Drugs and Women fanatics you'll know the lesson sank in.

[commodious warned u bucko]

Any sweaty, half-naked subterranean raves?

[Ken Shultz]

Awesome!

[LynchPin1477]

Which subterranean lairs? I'll be in there September.

[LynchPin1477]

We got a permit to do Subway and we also plan on doing the Narrows and Angels Landing. Really looking forward to it.

[LynchPin1477]

Top down

[lafe.long]

This subthread sounds dirty.